beta
Text
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is between the victim B (V, 48 years old) and the husband and wife, and is currently applying for divorce with the court at the present time.
On September 26, 2017, around 10:33, the Defendant brought a dispute with the victim on the ground that the Defendant did not inform the Defendant of the remainder of KRW 10,500,000,000, which was partially promised to give to the Defendant at the time of applying for divorce at the time of filing a divorce agreement.
However, during that period, the victim expressed a bath, such as "Chewing, the same year," and assaulted the head part of the victim with a lush hand once.
2. The facts charged in the instant case are the crimes falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act.
According to the records, the victim can be recognized on November 21, 2017, after the prosecution of this case, that he/she expressed his/her intention not to be punished against the defendant.
Therefore, pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the indictment of this case was dismissed (the victim expressed his/her intent to withdraw his/her wish not to punish the defendant on November 29, 2017).
However, in the crime of non-violation of intention, the victim has expressed his wish not to punish or withdrawn his wishing to punish.
In order for recognition, the victim’s genuine intent should be expressed in a way that enables clear and reliable testimony (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1809, Jun. 15, 2001). Such expression of intent can also be conducted with an investigative agency if it is before the judgment of the first instance is pronounced even after the institution of public prosecution. However, it is not possible to withdraw the expression of intent that does not wish to punish again after the explicitly indicated one time or to express the wish to punish (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3405, Sept. 6, 2007).